A recent NY Times has an article about SOL Austin, an acronym for Solutions Oriented Living. This housing development is interesting for at least two reasons. First, the designs and materials are intended to be “sustainable” (whatever that means), but also “net zero” (which I gather means that it will produce all the energy consumed). The houses have solar panels and geothermal wells.

Second, however, it is interesting because it is in east Austin, the low-income part of town. In fact, a 1928 “city plan” decided that east Austin would be “designated African-American”. The 1962 construction of Interstate I-35 further divided east from west. The relatively flat east side of Austin had all the industrial blight, pollution, and low-income housing. In fact, it was quite cheap! The hilly west side of Austin had the fancy new upscale houses with views of the Hill Country.

One would think that the intellectual-academic, left-leaning, high-income households of west Austin might be more interested in sustainable housing that could go “off the grid.” Why then are these developers building super-energy-efficient houses in east Austin?

Well, for one thing, the 2010 census showed a 40% increase in east Austin’s white population and a drop in minority population. In correlated fashion, land prices in east Austin have risen considerably. In fact, a different article in the NY Timestells about a study based on the 2010 census finding that all residential segregation in U.S. cities has fallen significantly. Cities are more racially integrated than at any time since 1910. It finds that all-white enclaves “are effectively extinct”. Black urban ghettos are shrinking. “An influx of immigrants and the gentrification of black neighborhoods contributed to the change, the study said, but suburbanization by blacks was even more instrumental.”

Since I’m visiting here in Austin, Texas, it is easy enough to go see the new development. As you can see in the snapshot below, the houses have a modern box-like style. They range from 1,000 to 1,800 square feet. That explains the article’s reference to “matchbox” houses. But the roofs are sloped enough to hold photovoltaic arrays and to channel rainwater into barrels.

The developers said they wanted to “examine sustainability on a more holistic level, that would not just look at green buildings, but in our interest in affordability, in the economic and social components of sustainability as well.” As stated in the NY Times article, the developers “hammered out a plan with … the nonprofit Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corporation, to sell 16 of the 40 homes to the organization. The group, in turn, sold eight of the houses at a subsidized rate to low-income buyers (who typically were able to buy a house valued at more than $200,000 for half price).” Each of those 16 subsidized homes has a photovoltaic array on the roof, though not necessarily large enough to produce all of the needed power for the house.

Of the “market-rate” houses, all sold at prices in the low $200,000’s. Eleven have been sold, and thirteen have yet to be built. Because of the financial and housing crisis, however, the “holistic” development ideas have not worked perfectly. Homeowners got rebates from Austin Energy and tax credits from the federal government. So far, however, only four market-rate house owners paid the extra $24,000 for photovoltaic arrays substantial enough to fully power a house. Only one is also heated and cooled by a geothermal well. But they all have thermally efficient windows, foam insulation, and Energy Star appliances.

So far, only one couple paid to install the geothermal well and the extra energy monitoring system: a systems engineer and a microbiologist. So, “sustainability” in low-income neighborhoods might still require some gentrification.

Just a couple days ago, the Wall Street Journal reported that “U.S. exports of gasoline, diesel and other oil-based fuels are soaring, putting the nation on track to be a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011 for the first time in 62 years.” Taken literally, this fact is strictly “correct”, but it is misleading. It is therefore very poor reporting. The authors either don’t understand the words they use, or they are deliberately trying to mislead readers.

The reason it is misleading is because the article implies the U.S. is headed toward “energy independence”, and that implication is wrong. It goes on to say: “As recently as 2005, the U.S. imported nearly 900 million barrels more of petroleum products than it exported. Since then the deficit has been steadily shrinking until finally disappearing last fall, and analysts say the country will not lose its ‘net exporter’ tag anytime soon.” That statement and several expert quotes in the article clearly imply the U.S. is headed toward “energy independence”.

Strictly speaking, the WSJ is correct that the U.S. exports more “petroleum products” than it imports, … but “petroleum products” do not include crude oil!! “Petroleum products” include only refined products like gasoline, diesel fuel, or jet fuel. The implication is only that the U.S. has a large refinery capacity!

The U.S. is a huge net importer of crude oil, and a huge net importer of all “crude oil and petroleum products” taken together, as you can see from the chart below (provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration). In other words, we import boatloads of crude oil, we refine it, and then we export slightly more refined petroleum products than we import of refined petroleum products. Big deal.

If the WSJ reporters knew what they were talking about, or if they were not trying to mislead readers, then they should have just stated that the U.S. is a huge net importer of all “crude oil and petroleum products” taken together. They didn’t. That is why I conclude they do not understand the point, or that they are trying to misrepresent it. Neither conclusion is good for the Wall Street Journal.

They are simply wrong when they say: “The reversal raises the prospect of the U.S. becoming a major provider of various types of energy to the rest of the world, a status that was once virtually unthinkable.” Just look at the figure!

The Budget Control Act of 2011 established a joint congressional committee (the “Super Committee”) and charged it with the responsibility of reducing the deficit by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. If the Super Committee fails to reach an agreement, automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion over 10 years are triggered, starting in January 2013. These are said to be “across the board”, but they are not. They would apply $600 billion to Defense, and $600 to other spending. Entitlements are exempt, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) and refundable tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and child tax credit. These entitlements are exempt from the cuts because anyone who qualifies can participate (that spending is determined by participation, not by Congress).

In addition, the Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2012, so doing nothing means that tax rates would jump back to pre-2001 levels. That combination might be the best thing yet for our huge budget deficit.

The Federal government’s annual deficit has been more than $1 trillion since 2009. Continuation of that excess spending might create a debt crisis similar than the one now in Europe.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the trigger would cut $54.7 billion annually in both defense and non-defense spending from 2013 through 2021. Meanwhile, U.S. defense spending is around $700 billion per year, with cuts of about $35 billion per year already enacted, so the automatic trigger would reduce defense spending from about $665 billion to about $610 billion. Some may view that 10% cut as draconian, but the simple fact is that the U.S. needs to wind down its spending on two wars. Congress and voters are fooling themselves if they think the U.S. can continue to spend the same level on defense, not raise taxes, and make any major dent in the huge annual deficit.

The same point can be made for automatic cuts in Social Security, which in its current form is unsustainable. Since it was enacted in 1935, life expectancy has increased dramatically, which means more payouts than anticipated. Birth rates have declined, which means fewer workers and less payroll tax than anticipated. The system will run out of money in 2037. Congress either needs to raise taxes or cut spending. But they won’t do either! The only solution might be the automatic course, without action by Congress!

In my last two blogs, I wrote about ways to meet the Illinois state revenue needs, ways that might work better than the increase in the income tax. This blog continues the list of possible “green taxes”. In general, a green tax applies either directly on pollution emissions or on goods whose use causes pollution. For raising a given amount of revenue, the basic argument for green taxes can be summarized by the adage: “tax waste, not work”. That is, a tax on pollution might have good effects on the environment, because it discourages pollution. In contrast, an income tax discourages earning income.

In early January 2011, the State of Illinois enacted legislation to raise the personal income tax rate from 3% to 5% and to increase the corporate income rate from 4.8% to 7%. Along with a cap on spending growth, these tax increases reduce the state’s projected budget deficit in 2011 by $3.8 billion (from $10.9 to $7.1 billion). The governor justified the tax increases on the grounds that the State’s “fiscal house was burning” (Chicago Tribune, January 12, 2011). In my piece with Dan Karney for a recent IGPA Forum, we don’t debate what caused the fiscal crisis in Illinois, nor argue the merits of cutting spending versus raising revenue. Instead, we just take it as given that politicians decided to raise revenue as part of the solution to the State’s deficit. Then we analyze the use of a few green taxes as alternative ways to raise revenue.

While many green taxes are possible, we focus on four examples that have the potential to raise large amounts of revenue: carbon pricing, gasoline taxes, trucking tolls, and garbage fees. Indeed, as we show, a reasonable set of tax rates on these four items can generate as much revenue as the income tax increase. We apply each hypothetical green tax directly to historical quantities of emissions (or polluting products) in order to obtain an approximate level of potential revenue generation.

In a short series of blogs, one per week, we now discuss each of the four green taxes and their potential for revenue generation. In past weeks we covered Carbon Pricing and Gasoline Taxes. This week we cover Trucking Toll and Garbage Fees.

Every day hundreds of thousands of vehicles crowd Illinois’s roads and highways. Data from the Federal Highway Administration indicates that over 50,000 trucks (six tires and over) cross into Illinois from neighboring states along the interstate highway system. While these trucks bring needed goods to Illinois, they also congest the roads, degrade the road surfaces, and fill the air with soot. They also become involved in vehicle accidents that cost the lives of many in Illinois. To compensate the state, Illinois can impose a toll for long-haul trucks using Illinois’s highways. For example, a $5 per truck toll on 50,000 trucks daily would raise almost $100 million annually. (In comparison, the existing Illinois toll road system generates approximately $600 million annually.) The truck toll can be implemented using existing transponder technology deployed at weigh stations along the interstate highways. (As an aside, we note, the constitutionality of state trucking tolls is not clear, because the federal government determines the rules of interstate commerce; however, major portions of the existing interstate highway system are subject to tolls, including the heavily travelled I-95 corridor in Delaware. )

Next, residents of Illinois generate approximately 19 million tons of garbage per year (or more than one ton per person per year), and 60 percent of that waste ends up in landfills. Currently, large municipal waste landfill operators currently pay state fees that total $2.22 per ton of solid waste dumped. But few municipalities in Illinois charge fees designed to discourage the creation of waste by residents (Don Fullerton and Sarah M. Miller, 2010, “Waste and Recycling in Illinois,” Illinois Report 2010, pp.70-80).

However, empirical evidence shows that taxing garbage at the residential level does reduce garbage production (Don Fullerton and Thomas C. Kinnaman, 1996, “Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the Bag,” American Economic Review, 86, pp. 971-84). Yet the exact garbage taxation mechanism varies by program. For instance, a fee can be levied on garbage bags themselves or on the containers that hold the garbage bags. Regardless, a tax rate equivalent to one penny per pound of garbage would generate almost $240 million in revenue per year, or 6.3% of the expected revenue from the income tax increase.

Finally, consider a Portfolio Approach. Remember, at issue here is not whether to raise taxes. We presume the State has decided to raise taxes by $3.8 billion (as done already through the income tax increase). Here, we merely explore alternative ways to raise revenue other than through the income tax.

Anyway, instead of implementing only one of the green taxes describe above, Illinois could choose to implement several green taxes simultaneously. This portfolio approach would keep rates low for each individual green tax, but still generate large amounts of total revenue that can add up to a large share of the total expected revenue from the recent income tax hike. According to the numbers in all three blogs, one simple and moderate plan would combine the following green taxes and pay for more than half of the needed revenue: A carbon tax of $10/ton would collect $1 billion (raising electricity prices by about 7.5%), a gas tax increase of 14 cents per gallon would collect $0.7 billion (raising gas prices by about 4.4%), a trucking toll of $5 would collect $100 million, and a garbage fee of one penny per pound would collect $240 million. Then the recent income tax increase could be cut by more than half.

Last week, I wrote about carbon pricing as a way to meet the Illinois state revenue needs (instead of an increase in the income tax). This week, in the “continuation”, I write about a possible increase in the gasoline tax. First, I’ll set the stage again.

In early January 2011, the State of Illinois enacted legislation to raise the personal income tax rate from 3% to 5% and to increase the corporate income rate from 4.8% to 7%. Along with a cap on spending growth, these tax increases reduce the state’s projected budget deficit in 2011 by $3.8 billion (from $10.9 to $7.1 billion). The governor justified the tax increases on the grounds that the State’s “fiscal house was burning” (Chicago Tribune, January 12, 2011). In my piece with Dan Karney for a recent IGPA Forum, we don’t debate the reasons for the underlying fiscal crisis in the State of Illinois, nor argue the merits of cutting spending versus raising revenue to balance the budget. Instead, we just stipulate that politicians decided to raise revenue as part of the solution to the State’s deficit. Then we analyze the use of “green taxes” as an alternate means of raising revenue that could mitigate or eliminate the need for increasing income taxes.

In general, green taxes are taxes either directly on pollution emissions or on goods whose use causes pollution. In the revenue-raising context however, the basic argument for green taxes can be summarized by the adage: “tax waste, not work”. That is, a tax on pollution might have good effects on the environment, because it discourages pollution. In contrast, an income tax discourages earning income.

While many green taxes could be implemented, we focus on four specific examples that have the potential to raise large amounts of revenue: carbon pricing, gasoline taxes, trucking tolls, and garbage fees. Indeed, as we show, a reasonable set of tax rates on these four items can generate as much revenue as the income tax increase. We apply each hypothetical green tax directly to historical quantities of emissions (or polluting products) in order to obtain an approximate level of potential revenue generation.

In a short series of blogs, one per week, we now discuss each of the four green taxes and their potential for revenue generation. This week: Gasoline Taxes.

Gasoline sales in Illinois are subject to a state excise tax set in 1990 at $0.19 per gallon. In addition, other state fees and a federal excise tax of $0.18 per gallon are applied to gasoline sales for a total tax rate in Illinois of $0.61 per gallon, according to the American Petroleum Institute. However, economic studies find that the existing tax rates on gasoline are below the optimal rate that would account for all the costs of pollution and time wasted due to traffic jams. For instance, the “optimal” U.S. total gasoline tax has been estimated to be about $1 per gallon, according to Ian Parry and Kenneth Small (2005), “Does Britain of the United States Have the Right Gasoline Tax” [American Economic Review, 95(4): 1276-89]. Illinois would have to raise the tax rate by 40 cents to reach that $1 total optimal rate. The third line of table 2 shows that a $0.40 per gallon gasoline tax hike would collect approximately $2.0 billion (just over half of the $3.8 billion from the income tax increase). Yet that tax increase would raise by 12.4 percent the $15.9 billion Illinoisans spend annually on gasoline.

Table 2 includes alternative calculations of revenue generation levels from a gasoline tax. For example, a generic 5 cent per gallon excise tax increase would generate $250 million (see table 2 line 1).

The existing $0.19 per gallon excise tax in Illinois is not indexed to inflation, so the real revenue to the State from the gasoline excise tax has steady fallen over time. The second line of table 2 calculates that the state could adjust the tax rate back to its 1990 purchasing power by raising the rate 14 cents per gallon (from 19 cents to 33 cents). That would just account for inflation since 1990. The increase in revenue would be $700 million (which is 18.3% of the expected revenue from the income tax increase).

Illinois residents would then pay 4.4% more for gasoline, INSTEAD of paying more income tax. The point is that the gas tax would discourage driving and air pollution, instead of discouraging workers from earning income.

In early January 2011, the State of Illinois enacted legislation to raise the personal income tax rate from 3% to 5% and to increase the corporate income rate from 4.8% to 7%. Along with a cap on spending growth, these tax increases reduce the state’s projected budget deficit in 2011 by $3.8 billion (from $10.9 to $7.1 billion), according to the University of Illinois and their Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA Fiscal Fallout #5). The governor justified the tax increases on the grounds that the State’s “fiscal house was burning” (Chicago Tribune, January 12, 2011). Dan Karney and I wrote a recent piece for the IGPA Forum, but we don’t debate the reasons for the underlying fiscal crisis in the State of Illinois, nor argue the merits of cutting spending versus raising revenue to balance the budget. Instead, we just stipulate that politicians decided to raise revenue as part of the solution to the State’s deficit. Then we analyze the use of “green taxes” as an alternate means of raising revenue that could mitigate or eliminate the need for increasing income taxes.

In general, green taxes are taxes either directly on pollution emissions or on goods whose use causes pollution. In the revenue-raising context however, the basic argument for green taxes can be summarized by the adage: “tax waste, not work”. That is, taxes on labor income discourages workers from engaging in productive activities and thus hurts society, while taxing waste discourages harmful pollution and thus benefits society. In addition, the revenue raised from these green taxes can help the State’s fiscal crisis.

While many green taxes could be implemented, we focus on four specific examples that have the potential to raise large amounts of revenue: carbon pricing, gasoline taxes, trucking tolls, and garbage fees. Indeed, as we show, a reasonable set of tax rates on these four items can generate as much revenue as the income tax increase. That is, imposing green taxes can completely fill the $3.8 billion difference between the projected baseline deficit ($10.9 billion) and the post-tax deficit ($7.1 billion).

Yet we omit many other potentially high-revenue green taxes. For example, the State could tax nitrogen-based fertilizers that contribute to nitrogen run-off pollution in streams, rivers, and lakes. These omissions do not imply that other green taxes could not be implemented. Also, the simple analysis does not include behavioral responses by consumers and businesses. Rather, we apply hypothetical green taxes directly to historical quantities of emissions (or polluting products) in order to obtain an approximate level of potential revenue generation.

In a short series of blogs, one per week, we now discuss each of the four green taxes and their potential for revenue generation. This week: Carbon Pricing.

In 2008, electricity generators in the State of Illinois emitted almost 100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency (EIA). See the State Historical Tables of their Estimated Emissions by State (EIA-767 and EIA-906). While the United States has no nationwide price on carbon – neither a tax nor a cap-and-trade (permit) policy – some jurisdictions within the United States have imposed their own carbon policies. For instance, a coalition of Northeastern states implemented the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) to limit CO2 emissions using a permit policy. To date, RGGI’s modest effort has already generated close to $1 billion in revenue for the coalition states.

If Illinois were to adopt its own carbon pricing policy, then even a modest tax rate or permit price could raise significant revenue. For instance, a $5 per metric ton CO2 price on emissions from electricity producers generates about $500 million in revenue (or 14.4% of the $3.8 billion raised from the state’s income tax hike). By way of comparison, if the extra $500 million in emission taxes were entirely passed on to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills, then the average consumer’s bill would increase by 3.75% (where $13.3 billion is spent annually on electricity in Illinois).

Table 1 reports the possible “revenue enhancement” from the $5 per metric ton tax, along with three other pricing scenarios. Both the $5 and $10 rates are hypothetical prices created by the authors for expositional purposes. In contrast, the $20 per metric ton price is approximately the carbon price faced by electricity producers in Europe’s Emission Trading System (ETS). At the $20 rate, a carbon tax in Illinois generates almost $2 billion – over half of the tax revenue from the income tax increases. Finally, the $40 tax rate (or carbon price) is from Richard S. J. Tol (2009), “The Economic Effects of Climate Change,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(2): 29-51. It is an estimate of the optimal carbon price that accounts for all of the negative effects from carbon emissions. At this “optimal” price, the revenue from pricing carbon in Illinois by itself could replace the needed tax revenue from the State’s income tax increase.

Gas prices are back in the news, simply because gas prices are rising. Reporters like to discuss WHY gas prices are rising, but who knows? The price of gasoline or crude oil can vary with any change, either in supply or demand. We can always point to shifts in demand (like the growing economies of China and India), and we can always point to shifts in supply (like the shutdown of production due to unrest in countries of the Middle East and North Africa). But it’s very difficult to sort out the net impact of each such factor, since the price is affected daily by so many different changes.

Instead of trying to answer that question here and now, let’s take a step back and look at whether any of the current changes are really that unusual. Is the price of gas really high by historical standards? And how much of that gas price is driven by energy policy, taxes, and factors under the control of policymakers? In other words, let’s just look at the facts for now, and then try to analyze them later!

Here are the facts, for the fifty years since 1960. The first figure below is from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Look first at the BLUE line, where we see what you already know: the nominal price of gasoline has risen from $0.31/gallon to what’s now $3.56/gallon. It’s driving us broke, right?

Well, not so fast. The RED line corrects for inflation, showing all years’ prices in 2011 dollars. So both series stand at $3.56/gallon in 2011, but the red line shows that the “real” (inflation-corrected) price of gasoline back in 1960 was $2.33/gallon. In fact, compare the red line from 1960 to 2009: over those fifty years, the real price of gasoline only changed from $2.33 to $2.42 per gallon – virtually no change in the real price at all!

From 2009 to 2011 the real price increased beyond $2.42, rising to $3.56/gallon, but that may be temporary. You can see that the red line bounces around for the whole fifty year period. In 1980, the real price was $3.35/gallon, so the current price is not much different from previous upward blips in the real price of gas.

Now look at the U.S. Federal Gasoline Tax Rate, in the next figure. The red line in the next figure shows that the nominal statutory tax rate was four cents per gallon for years, and then it was increased in various increments to 18 cents per gallon today. But of course, inflation has changed the real value of that tax rate as well. Using 2011 dollars again, both real and nominal tax rates are 18 cents per gallon today. But in 2011 dollars, the 4 cents per gallon back in 1960 was really equivalent to 29 cents today. In other words, the real gas tax in the green line has fallen from 29 cents per gallon fifty years ago to only 18 cents today.

The gas price may be rising, but not due to any increase in the Federal gas tax. That Federal gas tax is falling in real terms. In the next entry, we’ll take a look at the various State gas tax rates, and we’ll look at how many of those taxes are fixed per gallon – so that they fall in real terms as inflation reduces the real value of those State tax rates.

Yes, I’ve written about the budget before, and perhaps I’m getting repetitive. But it’s important, and surprising, so I’ll give it another go. But nevermind President Obama’s recent release of a proposed budget for next year. That document is already irrelevant! Let’s start with the current budget.

Current federal spending now is over $3 trillion per year. The deficit is $1.6 trillion. The U.S. House of Representatives approved a plan to cut spending by $60 billion. The Republicans chose not to change spending on defense and homeland security, nor entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The problem is that then other discretionary spending must be cut for some government agencies by as much as 40%. And yet that total $60 billion cut is only a drop in the bucket. It cuts the annual deficit only from $1.6 trillion to 1.54 trillion!

My point is that you can’t get there from here. First of all, it’s not wise to cast such a wide net, without thinking, making cuts of 40% or more to discretionary programs simply because they are called discretionary. It means cuts to national parks, environmental programs, and federal employees who provide many public services people want.

Second, who says we need to leave defense and entitlements untouched? Within just a few years, Medicaid will cost about $300 billion per year, Medicare will cost $500 billion, and Social Security will cost $800 billion, and defense $800 billion. ALL of domestic discretionary spending will be only $400 billion. By those round numbers, $60 billion from that last category is a 15% cut. The same $60 billion cut proportionally from all of those categories would be only a 2% cut. That’s what I mean by a drop in the bucket.

Anyway, that plan would still cut the deficit only from $1.6 trillion to $1.54 trillion. The ONLY way to make any sizeable dent in the huge $1.6 trillion deficit is to look at all the current spending, not just at $400 billion of domestic discretionary spending, but at the $800 billion of defense spending, $800 billion of social security, $500 billion of Medicare, and/or $300 billion of Medicaid.

And who says taxes are sacrosanct? A $1.6 trillion deficit means we are spending more than our income, so one just MIGHT think that problem can be approached from both ends.

Many non-economists complain that economists care only about money. Not true. I care a lot about money, but that’s not ALL I care about! For a case in point, consider the proposal of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that would require rearview back-up cameras by 2014 on all new cars, pickups and SUVs. An article here says “The rule was demanded by legislation passed in 2007, called Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act. The act was named after a 2-year-old boy who was killed, when his father accidentally backed over him in the family’s driveway.” Yikes!

No warm-blooded human being could possibly oppose such a rule! The article says that rule would save about 100 lives per year! Don’t even LOOK at the cost, right? It would certainly seem hard-hearted to oppose such a rule, no matter the cost, when human life is at stake. We don’t want to trade off lives against dollars. You might not even care to know that “the addition of rear-view camera equipment would cost between $159 to $203 per car” so that the “total approximate cost to equip their estimate of 16.6 million vehicles sold in 2014, would be between $1.9 billion and $2.7 billion.”

On the other hand, we can’t go passing legislation with no consideration for cost whatever. Plenty of traffic fatalities could be avoided by spending more on guardrails, or by widening dangerous roadways, or adding traffic lights, or spending more on patrol cars to catch speeders and drunken drivers. Why aren’t we spending THAT money?

The fact is we DO make such tradeoffs, when we DON’T spend all that money on all those life saving measures. YOU make those choices, when you vote, or when you fail to write your Member of Congress. It’s not just economists.

The stumbling block seems to be not the tradeoff of lives for money, which we all do through our legislators. Rather, perhaps, the stumbling block is just the effort of economists to make that tradeoff explicit. Personally, I do think we ought to be explicit in how we analyze and vote for such policy measures. But that explicit tradeoff does not need to be in dollars at all!

Instead, consider the tradeoff JUST in lives lost. Compare policies directly to each other (as in the paper by Kip Viscusi in the Journal of Economic Perspectives in the Summer of 1996). For the $2 billion per year, we could save 100 lives, which is $20 million per life. Is that worthwhile? Write your legislator! It is not up to economists to make that trade.

But here is a thought to consider before you vote or write your Legislator. Transportation specialists can list a lot of possible proposals to save lives, some of which are not that expensive. The real tradeoff is not whether to spend $2 billion to save 100 lives, but rather, where to spend our $2 billion – on this proposal to save 100 lives, or on some other proposal that would save 200 lives!

Let’s at least look at all those traffic safety measures. Guardrails in the right locations might be cheap per life saved. Improving certain intersections might be cheap per life saved. Let’s look at everything! Viscusi mentions other kinds of safety expenditures as well, like emergency floor lighting, unvented space heaters, industrial benzene emissions, and seat cushion flammability.

Resources are inherently limited. We can’t spend infinite amounts. Even YOU might not agree to spend $2 billion on back-up cameras to save 100 lives, if that meant not spending $2 billion on something else that would save 200 or more lives per year.

Last week, when President Obama announced his compromise with Republicans over the Bush era tax cuts, the general perception throughout the media left one feeling like the Democrats just had their milk money stolen. All the talk of being taken hostage by the Republicans did little to ease that feeling. After working through all the talking points, politicking, and pandering, however, this much is clear: the debate has no obvious winners and losers. Both sides are getting watered down versions of what they really wanted. The basic premise of the deal is as follows:

The Bush era tax cuts are extended for everyone for the next two years.

Unemployment benefits are extended for 13 months.

The estate tax is back, in modified form.

Social Security taxes are cut for one year.

The tax cut at the top may help the rich more than desired by Democrats, but then the extra Social Security tax cut will help low-income families, and ALL those cuts will help stimulate the moribund economy.

The crux of the Republicans argument is that we are in danger of a double dip recession if the tax cuts expire, atalkingpoint the White House has not been shy about echoing in recent days. Interesting to note is a perceived contradiction by Republicans whereby they refuse to approve anything that might add to the national debt, such as the 9/11 Emergency Responders bill. Yet, extending the tax cuts implies 3.9 trillion dollars in lost revenue over the next ten years. The GOP counters that since the cuts are currently in effect, it’s not technically adding to the deficit.

What is missing from the equation here is any viable long term plan agreed upon by both parties. Yes, we get to do it all again, in just two years! The long term deficit can still be cut, but any meaningful cuts will have to include Medicaid, Social Security, and the military. God speed the politician brave enough to raise those issues. Our elected officials are really doing little more than pushing these problems off for the next 24 months, as one party attempts to out-politic the other. It’s a Ponzi Scheme, as pointed out in my earlier blog!

If the American Congress could tackle as many issues every month as they are through the month of December, American politics would look a lot different. We have seen critical votes attempting to resolve critical issues ranging from the 9/11 Responders health care, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and now the Bush era tax cuts, the estate tax, unemployment benefits extension, and more, all rolled into one. If only Congress could exist as a permanent lame duck!